Cargando…
Comparative analyses of published cost effectiveness models highlight critical considerations which are useful to inform development of new models
BACKGROUND: Comparative analyses of published cost effectiveness models provide useful insights into critical issues to inform the development of new cost effectiveness models in the same disease area. Objective: The purpose of this study was to describe a comparative analysis of cost-effectiveness...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7105898/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31835974 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2019.1705314 |
_version_ | 1783512499167952896 |
---|---|
author | Rautenberg, T. A. George, G. Bwana, M. B. Moosa, M. S. Pillay, S. McCluskey, S. M. Aturinda, I. Ard, K. Muyindike, W. Moodley, P. Brijkumar, J. Johnson, B. A. Gandhi, R. T. Sunpath, H. Marconi, V. C. Siedner, M. J. |
author_facet | Rautenberg, T. A. George, G. Bwana, M. B. Moosa, M. S. Pillay, S. McCluskey, S. M. Aturinda, I. Ard, K. Muyindike, W. Moodley, P. Brijkumar, J. Johnson, B. A. Gandhi, R. T. Sunpath, H. Marconi, V. C. Siedner, M. J. |
author_sort | Rautenberg, T. A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Comparative analyses of published cost effectiveness models provide useful insights into critical issues to inform the development of new cost effectiveness models in the same disease area. Objective: The purpose of this study was to describe a comparative analysis of cost-effectiveness models and highlight the importance of such work in informing development of new models. This research uses genotypic antiretroviral resistance testing after first line treatment failure for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) as an example. METHOD: A literature search was performed, and published cost effectiveness models were selected according to predetermined eligibility criteria. A comprehensive comparative analysis was undertaken for all aspects of the models. RESULTS: Five published models were compared, and several critical issues were identified for consider- ation when developing a new model. These include the comparator, time horizon and scope of the model. In addition, the composite effect of drug resistance prevalence, antiretroviral therapy efficacy, test performance and the proportion of patients switching to second-line ART potentially have a meas- urable effect on model results. When considering CD4 count and viral load, dichotomizing patients according to higher cost and lower quality of life (AIDS) versus lower cost and higher quality of life (non-AIDS) status will potentially capture differences between resistance testing and other strategies, which could be confirmed by cross-validation/convergent validation. A quality adjusted life year is an essential outcome which should be explicitly explored in probabilistic sensitivity analysis, where possible. CONCLUSIONS: Using an example of GART for HIV, this study demonstrates comparative analysis of pre- viously published cost effectiveness models yields critical information which can be used to inform the structure and specifications of new models. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7105898 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-71058982021-03-01 Comparative analyses of published cost effectiveness models highlight critical considerations which are useful to inform development of new models Rautenberg, T. A. George, G. Bwana, M. B. Moosa, M. S. Pillay, S. McCluskey, S. M. Aturinda, I. Ard, K. Muyindike, W. Moodley, P. Brijkumar, J. Johnson, B. A. Gandhi, R. T. Sunpath, H. Marconi, V. C. Siedner, M. J. J Med Econ Article BACKGROUND: Comparative analyses of published cost effectiveness models provide useful insights into critical issues to inform the development of new cost effectiveness models in the same disease area. Objective: The purpose of this study was to describe a comparative analysis of cost-effectiveness models and highlight the importance of such work in informing development of new models. This research uses genotypic antiretroviral resistance testing after first line treatment failure for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) as an example. METHOD: A literature search was performed, and published cost effectiveness models were selected according to predetermined eligibility criteria. A comprehensive comparative analysis was undertaken for all aspects of the models. RESULTS: Five published models were compared, and several critical issues were identified for consider- ation when developing a new model. These include the comparator, time horizon and scope of the model. In addition, the composite effect of drug resistance prevalence, antiretroviral therapy efficacy, test performance and the proportion of patients switching to second-line ART potentially have a meas- urable effect on model results. When considering CD4 count and viral load, dichotomizing patients according to higher cost and lower quality of life (AIDS) versus lower cost and higher quality of life (non-AIDS) status will potentially capture differences between resistance testing and other strategies, which could be confirmed by cross-validation/convergent validation. A quality adjusted life year is an essential outcome which should be explicitly explored in probabilistic sensitivity analysis, where possible. CONCLUSIONS: Using an example of GART for HIV, this study demonstrates comparative analysis of pre- viously published cost effectiveness models yields critical information which can be used to inform the structure and specifications of new models. 2020-01-11 2020-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7105898/ /pubmed/31835974 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2019.1705314 Text en This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. www.tandfonline.com/ijme (http://www.tandfonline.com/ijme) |
spellingShingle | Article Rautenberg, T. A. George, G. Bwana, M. B. Moosa, M. S. Pillay, S. McCluskey, S. M. Aturinda, I. Ard, K. Muyindike, W. Moodley, P. Brijkumar, J. Johnson, B. A. Gandhi, R. T. Sunpath, H. Marconi, V. C. Siedner, M. J. Comparative analyses of published cost effectiveness models highlight critical considerations which are useful to inform development of new models |
title | Comparative analyses of published cost effectiveness models highlight critical considerations which are useful to inform development of new models |
title_full | Comparative analyses of published cost effectiveness models highlight critical considerations which are useful to inform development of new models |
title_fullStr | Comparative analyses of published cost effectiveness models highlight critical considerations which are useful to inform development of new models |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative analyses of published cost effectiveness models highlight critical considerations which are useful to inform development of new models |
title_short | Comparative analyses of published cost effectiveness models highlight critical considerations which are useful to inform development of new models |
title_sort | comparative analyses of published cost effectiveness models highlight critical considerations which are useful to inform development of new models |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7105898/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31835974 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2019.1705314 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT rautenbergta comparativeanalysesofpublishedcosteffectivenessmodelshighlightcriticalconsiderationswhichareusefultoinformdevelopmentofnewmodels AT georgeg comparativeanalysesofpublishedcosteffectivenessmodelshighlightcriticalconsiderationswhichareusefultoinformdevelopmentofnewmodels AT bwanamb comparativeanalysesofpublishedcosteffectivenessmodelshighlightcriticalconsiderationswhichareusefultoinformdevelopmentofnewmodels AT moosams comparativeanalysesofpublishedcosteffectivenessmodelshighlightcriticalconsiderationswhichareusefultoinformdevelopmentofnewmodels AT pillays comparativeanalysesofpublishedcosteffectivenessmodelshighlightcriticalconsiderationswhichareusefultoinformdevelopmentofnewmodels AT mccluskeysm comparativeanalysesofpublishedcosteffectivenessmodelshighlightcriticalconsiderationswhichareusefultoinformdevelopmentofnewmodels AT aturindai comparativeanalysesofpublishedcosteffectivenessmodelshighlightcriticalconsiderationswhichareusefultoinformdevelopmentofnewmodels AT ardk comparativeanalysesofpublishedcosteffectivenessmodelshighlightcriticalconsiderationswhichareusefultoinformdevelopmentofnewmodels AT muyindikew comparativeanalysesofpublishedcosteffectivenessmodelshighlightcriticalconsiderationswhichareusefultoinformdevelopmentofnewmodels AT moodleyp comparativeanalysesofpublishedcosteffectivenessmodelshighlightcriticalconsiderationswhichareusefultoinformdevelopmentofnewmodels AT brijkumarj comparativeanalysesofpublishedcosteffectivenessmodelshighlightcriticalconsiderationswhichareusefultoinformdevelopmentofnewmodels AT johnsonba comparativeanalysesofpublishedcosteffectivenessmodelshighlightcriticalconsiderationswhichareusefultoinformdevelopmentofnewmodels AT gandhirt comparativeanalysesofpublishedcosteffectivenessmodelshighlightcriticalconsiderationswhichareusefultoinformdevelopmentofnewmodels AT sunpathh comparativeanalysesofpublishedcosteffectivenessmodelshighlightcriticalconsiderationswhichareusefultoinformdevelopmentofnewmodels AT marconivc comparativeanalysesofpublishedcosteffectivenessmodelshighlightcriticalconsiderationswhichareusefultoinformdevelopmentofnewmodels AT siednermj comparativeanalysesofpublishedcosteffectivenessmodelshighlightcriticalconsiderationswhichareusefultoinformdevelopmentofnewmodels |